| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
November 27th 03, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#2
November 27th 03, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! You WANT absurdity? more snippage so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. DOS tip: The FCC determines what it requires in licensing of radio operators, NOT the "amateur community" or the "communities" of any other radio service that require radio operators. We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! You can always petiiton the FCC for a complete change in scope and description of U.S. amateur radio. I'd suggest you change the name to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service" for below-30-MHz. Make morse the prime definition of HF amateur radio. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. Has anyone seen YOUR opposition to a "VEC group publishing what they want?" We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Don't try to rationalize a weak argument of yours as "more noble, logical, in the best interests of the service," etc., etc. by feigning outrage at "improper acts of others." We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Don't worry, 981 commenters on RM-10811 (largest number of respondents of the 14 petitions) have been busy stating things in public. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. WHY? You are just about to fall over the edge of the "I had to do it so everyone else has to do it in the future" non-argument. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. "Dramatic?!?!?" Only if you are a morseman is such a thing "dramatic." :-) They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Translation: You had to do something but if others in the future don't do as you did, they are getting something "free?" Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. Okay, begin with some fundamentals: 1. A radio boot camp where all "novices" have to learn to take orders from their "superior" license class holders, march in ranks to beep music determined by long-ago-dead-amateurs, know vacuum tube lore by heart, learn how to memorize all the radio ads in QST and desire each item. 2. Swear an oath of allegiance to amateur radio and the constitution of the ARRL, salute each vertical diamond logo as it passes in front of your eyes. Loyalty, fraternity, etc. 3. Wear cute little radio uniforms when operating, have shiny radio shields in a special holder giving you "authority" anyplace. Uniforms are a good place to show RANK and TIME IN GRADE while "in the (radio) service." 4. Demand immediate obeyance by all "civilians" not in your "service" as superior in the radio arts. Reject all those who do not think as you do. Remember that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT apply to citizens on amateur radio matters...unless said citizen is licensed in amateur radio. 5. Petition the FCC for an immediate change of the HF amateur radio service to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service," or perhaps "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society." That way you can keep the beloved code test and force all in the future to do exactly as you had to do. 6. Always remember that YOUR efforts in getting that amateur license were so awesome, overpowering, enobling that the individual efforts of mere "civilians" not into amateur radio are forever poor and puny by comparison. 7. Amateurs RULE. Professionals must obey the amateurs. LHA |
|
#3
November 28th 03, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
November 28th 03, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. And how do you *prove* they are necessary, in a modern-day environment where even the self-proclaimed "professionals in radio" are using or will use manufactured rigs that are virtually foolproof? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#5
November 28th 03, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! Glad you brought that up! Article 25, paragraph 6 refers to administrators verifying operational and technical qualifications. It refers to "guidance" that can be taken from Recommendation ITU-R-M.1544. Ouch! "Guidance and "Reccomendations"? What have we here? That administrations can bend the rules as they wish, with W1AW making broadcasts, (which I support, BTW) third party operations between schoolkids and the International space station, just to name a few. So if they can bend rules, imagine their needed reaction to "guidelines". I'm saying that the framework for NTI is in place, and no treaty changes are needed. Maybe that deregulation argument I brough up the other day isn't so far fetched after all. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the Misssd something there Jim! 8^) We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. Sure, strong, well reasoned, loud and strong. 8^) We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? Classic blame the messenger. We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? All I can say is that I studied over 6 months to get to 5 wpm. I have been working now for the past 4 months to get my speed up. I've tried several different methods, and am just now getting to the point where I can pick out some of the words on the air. at least an hour a day, seven days a week doing both computer and on the air, and I still suck. The only thing that keeps me working at it is the personal challenge. So while I am happy for those children that have learned 20 wpm Morse, I have to say that it just ain't the same for everybody. If those rules from long ago were still in effect, I'd probably have to have a different hobby! My Novice ticket would run out, and that would be it. Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" HAH! Some hobby! - Mike KB3EIA - |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
| Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
